aaron.ballman accepted this revision.
aaron.ballman added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
LGTM!
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/ClangTidyDiagnosticConsumer.cpp:276
+ // Never ignore these.
+ } else if (!Context.isCheckEnabled(Error.DiagnosticName) &&
+ Error.DiagLevel != ClangTidyError::Error) {
----------------
njames93 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Perhaps this is a bad idea, but would it make sense to have
> > `isCheckEnabled()` report `true` for `clang-tidy-config`? It's not really a
> > check, so that's a bit odd, but it seems like anywhere we're testing this
> > property we wouldn't want to ignore config issues?
> I didn't personally think that was a good way to go. This is the only real
> place its used where you would get isCheckEnabled called with
> `clang-tidy-config`.
Okay, that's good enough for me, thank you!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91885
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
